What is social policy?
The almost inevitable starting point for a book such as this is the question: what is social policy? An immediate response is that āsocial policyā is both an academic subject area and a sphere of government activity, and that, as the discussion that follows and indeed the rest of this book illustrates, the boundaries of both are somewhat vague and change over time.
Indeed, while the academic subject itself has developed and changed direction considerably from the 1980s, that is in part because the actions of governments and others impact upon what might be considered as āsocial policyā (for example, with policies on matters such as transport and food affecting the well-being of individuals and communities), and in part because social policy ideas have considerable importance in their application to new and emerging policy challenges, such as climate change (such as the potential for very different implications for poorer and richer states and individuals).
As an academic subject, social policy is clearly related to other social science disciplines, such as criminology, politics or sociology, but it also has a resonance with many professional courses, such as those focusing on social work, housing, nursing and even medicine. Given the connections, it is not surprising that the study of social policy often draws upon concepts and insights that come from other subjects, but at the same time it brings its own distinctive approach to the understanding and analysis of the world.
Although it may draw upon a range of cognate areas, social policy as an academic discipline can be seen as differing from others in a number of ways. For example, it is different from sociology in its focus upon the formulation, implementation and delivery of policies that affect the circumstances of individuals, groups and society; it differs from politics in its focus upon welfare and well-being; and it is different from economics because it is less concerned with the production of goods and services and because of its emphasis upon social or welfare policies and their outcomes. This is not to say that there are not sometimes closely related interests, and social policy academics and courses may be located in departments with a variety of labels in different higher education institutions, whilst social policy departments may in turn contain individuals who draw heavily upon or whose backgrounds lie in other subjects. There are also many institutions where social policy is in a department jointly with one or more other subjects, such as criminology, politics, social work or sociology. These all reflect the complexity and breadth of the subject.
Notwithstanding this discussion, the nature of the subject has changed considerably over time. For much of the twentieth century āsocial administrationā, as it was then called, was strongly associated with the Fabian tradition, itself linked to social democratic thought including the Labour Party (see Chapter 9). Many social administration academics were therefore seeking not merely to study social policy but also to influence it in a direction that fitted generally with Fabian beliefs, often using their research and analysis to support their political arguments. These could roughly be characterised as a belief in the role of the state as a central pillar of welfare provision (the āwelfare stateā), generally located in a mixed economy, and a commitment to research and analysis that was concerned with the identification of needs and the impact of state welfare in attempting to meet those needs. This classic welfare state was often conceived of in relation to policies of income maintenance and social security, health care, the personal social services, education and training, employment and housing; and social policy was widely seen as what the welfare state did. However, in the second half of the twentieth century a more critical approach emerged within the subject, and by the 1970s and 1980s it was possible to identify a number of theoretical challenges to the association of Fabianism and the study of social administration and social policies linked to the welfare state. These included:
- The New Right and other āanti-collectivistsā ā one of the most significant attacks on state provision of welfare (see Chapter 8) came from the right, and in particular from think tanks such as the Adam Smith Institute, the Centre for Policy Studies and the Institute for Economic Affairs. These critiques took a number of forms, but often drew on neo-liberal ideas and could generally be seen as arguing that the welfare state was a burden on the economy and that it demanded too high levels of public expenditure and an excessive tax burden upon entrepreneurs and citizens; that it damaged individual choice, in contrast to the market, which is seen from this perspective as promoting it; and that it weakened the family and encouraged dependency. The strategies that were put forward as alternatives typically involved cuts in income tax, a shift away from state provision to individuals providing for themselves and their families through the private market, direct charging for services such as education and health, and the replacement of most of the benefits and services provided by the state with alternatives from the private and voluntary sectors;
- A number of emerging criticisms on the left ā some began to accept that the role of the state remained problematic in the provision of welfare and suggested that whilst in some instances state intervention had been valuable in changing social conditions, in others it had not always been so beneficial. Some argued that one answer was the injection of more resources to help tackle problems more successfully, whilst others favoured alternative approaches, such as the decentralisation of power and the encouragement of self-help for particular groups. One view, associated with a Marxist approach, suggested that in reality state welfare reflected the needs of capitalism for an educated, healthy workforce, and that this explained the failure of the welfare state to solve social problems;
- The centre ā critiques of the welfare state also emerged from centrist positions, frequently focusing upon the view that the large bureaucratic organ-isations that were often responsible for delivering welfare were inefficient and inflexible and were remote from the needs of consumers and that they tended to be run in the interests of professionals and administrators rather than users or citizens; from this perspective, proposed solutions generally involved a shift towards a pluralistic, decentralised and more participative pattern of provision, including a much greater role for the voluntary sector;
- Other critical perspectives ā for example, feminists pointed out that there were a number of assumptions behind the provision of many services, including education, health care and the personal social services, such as that it was ānaturalā for women to provide care for children, disabled people and older people and that they would often provide this care free at home whilst men went out to work and earn the household income (see Chapter 20). The state therefore could be seen as exploiting and encouraging the ācaring roleā of women. Even when women did work (often in the ācaring servicesā) there was a tendency for them to do so in the less-well paid jobs, whilst men dominated the higher status better-paid positions. In a similar manner, it could also be pointed out that many welfare services failed to recognise particular needs of minority ethnic groups, disabled people and others.
There were other developments that encouraged reflection within the subject. These included other neo-liberal critiques, in particular of bureaucracies, which have been important in the delivery of state welfare. Neo-liberal thinkers have argued that bureaucrats are primarily concerned with promoting their own interests and that they do this at the expense of the public interest. In addition, they suggest that political control of state bureaucracies is often ineffective. They see these as combining to increase the pressure for higher levels of public expenditure, which itself is viewed as problematic and a drain on the economy. Given the large bureaucracies often associated with state welfare provision, these arguments, if accepted, raise significant questions over the mechanisms used for delivering welfare.
It is also worth noting here that while the academic subject of social policy, and indeed many social policies, have been concerned with improving the welfare of citizens, or leading to greater social justice, there is nothing necessary or inevitable about this. Social policies (and other measures, such as taxation (see Chapter 10)) can equally be designed to ignore or even to increase inequalities.
From the 1970s, there also came to be a much greater awareness of the relevance of comparison to the study and understanding of social policy. In part this resulted from the United Kingdomās membership of the European Union, which inevitably focused greater attention upon Europe and other European states. However, increasingly this interest spread to other areas of the world and, in particular, sought to learn from the experiences and policies of other states. For some, for example, the Scandinavian states provided models for state welfare founded in a social democratic approach. For others, the more market-oriented approach of the United States appeared to present a more appropriate path for the United Kingdom. Whatever the approach, it became apparent that there was a great diversity of forms of welfare provision, with very different mixes of provision by the public, private, voluntary and informal sectors. The comparative approach to social policy has developed greatly in recent years and is now a major strand within the subject (see Chapters 22 and 23), while concerns over international changes such as globalisation, migration and climate change have been seen as having implications for the shape of social policies.
From a different perspective, there are many examples of policy transfer, with governments seeking to draw upon ideas and policies from other countries to help them respond to domestic issues, such as elements of Labourās New Deal, which drew on the experience of the United States, and the Coalition and Conservative governmentsā āfree schoolsā, which drew on the establishment of similar schools in Canada, Sweden and the United States.
The impact of all of these developments has inevitably affected the academic subject of social policy. Over a period of time it has come to reflect and respond to these debates, arguably becoming broader and, in some respects at least, more critical. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) subject benchmark statement for social policy (the following Spotlight box) reflects this continuous evolution of the boundaries and relevance of social policy and its insights.
SPOTLIGHT
Social policy subject benchmark: the nature and extent of the social policy
The subject of social policy is concerned with the distribution and organisation of human welfare and well-being within societies. It focuses on the ways in which different societies understand and respond to the social needs of their populations. The subject is characterised by the following principles:
- The rigorous linking of theoretical analysis with empirical enquiry;
- The identification and understanding of different value positions;
- A willingness to engage with a range of intellectual traditions and other subjects;
- The belief that, through a programme, students acquire the skills and qualities that enable them to become active and informed citizens.
Social policy is an interdisciplinary and applied subject that pays particular attention to analysing the distribution and delivery of resources in response to social needs, preferences and expectations. As such, social policy is concerned with the circumstances of individuals, groups and societies. The subject draws on ideas and methods from economics, political science and sociology, and also uses insights from a range of other subjects including criminology, development studies, human geogra...
